Tuesday, May 21, 2019

"The penalty of $25.00 is an inducement to the possessor to consume the liquor as rapidly as he knows that if only charged with being drunk he escapes with a fine of $5.00 only."

1913 to 1916

Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia (Canada), White, Nathaniel Whitworth, 1837-1917., McKenna, J. A. J. (James Andrew Joseph), 1862-1919., Carmichael, Saumanez, Shaw, J. P., MacDowall, D. H. (Day Hort), 1850-1927, McBride, Richard, Sir, 1870-1917


Page 28 of 30

....... Frequently at meetings of the different Indian Bands the question of fines imposed on Indians under the clauses of the Indian act relating to liquor have been discussed, and Mr. George Jay, Police Magistrate for the County of Victoria and also Stipendiary Magistrate for the County of Victoria, which includes the several Indian Reservations situate in Saanich, Esquimalt and Sooke Districts, has made the following statement and suggestion to the Commission:-

"Under the terms of the Indian Act, Sec. 137,"an Indian who is found in a state of intoxication is liable to a fine of not less than $5.00.  In those cases in which an Indian is found in possession of an intoxicant it is usually confined to a bottle of whiskey or gin, and sometimes only a small flask.

The penalty of $25.00 is an inducement to the possessor to consume the liquor as rapidly as he knows that if only charged with being drunk he escapes with a fine of $5.00 only.

The penalty of $25.00 was fixed by Statute some years ago at a time when it was a practice amongst a certain class to supply large quantities of liquor to Indians in remote Reservations.

With regard to fines for being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it frequently happens that an Indian appears in the Police Court at the same time as white men charged with the same offence.  The practice for many years here has been in the case of those other than Indians to impose a fine of $2.00 for a first offence and a slightly increased fine in the case to the second or subsequent offence, but with regard to the Indians a Magistrate has no alternative but to impose the minimum fine of $5.00, which must to the Indian appear to be a marked discrimination against him.

I would respectfully recommend that the Indian Act be amended with regard to the penalties for those offences by allowing Magistrates wider discretion and by eliminating the provisions as to minimum fines, thus leaving it to the judgment of the Magistrate dealing with the offence to impose such fine as may in his opinion be proper, not exceeding, of course, the maximum fine provided in the Act.

I may add that I have resided at Victoria for the past 45 years and have had much experience of the habits of the Indians of the southern portion of Vancouver Island and the Islands of the Gulf.

Your Commission are of the opinion that, were these suggestions followed, it would tend to remove from the Indian the feeling that he is looked down on with contempt and his race deemed unworthy of being treated in a manner similar to other British subjects in His Majesty's Dominions, and that the greater latitude allowed Magistrates in their discretion, would have a tendency to elevate rather than debase the Indian."

And of course, the politicians chose to keep it just the way it was, because they hadn't finished plundering the First Nation People and their possessions.

Friday, May 10, 2019

Half Truth, No Truth, And Sleight-Of-Hand At The Globe and Mail. - Robin Mathews

(The Globe and Mail is representative.)
(by Robin Mathews, May 2019)

 The air fills, this month, with journalistic awards, for doing what journalists, approvingly, do within the acceptable activity of journalists: half-truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand.  Of course, some of them live hair-raising hours, which lifts them to wide attention and holds off the question: What Evil Are They Serving?  All the journalists, for instance, covering the The Rape of the Middle East (2003 onwards) who did not (do not) condemn the USA, NATO, and every supporting force were (are) frauds, liars, active evil-doers. 

Most upsetting to the (innumerable) spokespeople writing on their behalf is the number of journalists being murdered in our time. (And good people must agree.  Even fools creating propaganda for evil masters of The Deep State do not deserve to be murdered.  Though what they do deserve is hard to say.)

The Globe and Mail even had (Saturday, May 4/19) an eight-page Supplement under the banner: FREE THE PRESS.  (Let us remark that in the last hours before the 2016 federal election "the Harper Conservatives having done all they could to destroy fair elections in Canada" the Globe and Mail editorialists trumpeted the need to return Stephen Harper to power. FREE THE PRESS, indeed!)

Deeply regrettable is the murder of journalists around the world, especially since many of them really believe they are serving a force dedicated to freedom, liberty, justice, and peace for ordinary men and women and children.  Just think of the journalists paid to be and lying about the situation in Venezuela!  Just think of their intense desire to destroy a government targeted by the U.S. Deep State backed by the lackeys in NATO backed with enthusiasm by Canada's collaborating Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, whose grandfather also collaborated [in his case with the Nazis] creating, perhaps, a role model for his granddaughter.

How do Canadians deal with the lying journalists on Venezuela?  By silencing them?  Or, how else ...?  Not by calling upon Trivia specialists Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer.  Not by calling upon collaborator Chrystia Freeland.

Doug Saunders, eager Globe and Mailer, trumpets the falsehood that The silencing of journalists is an attempt to silence us all.  Wholesale Hogwash! !  It might just be that the silencing of all Globe and Mail journalists would provide an opening for some truth to be told in Canada.

The Globe and Mail refuses (obviously) to examine, investigate, and report on the people who faked 31 (thirty-one) criminal charges against MikeDuffy (2016)Why?  The Globe and Mail refuses to examine and report upon the real criminals exposed by two higher Canadian courts in the entrapment of innocents and the created falsehood of an Islamic Terrorist Event at the B.C. Legislature grounds (2013 and after to December 2018). Why?  The Globe and Mail will not even glance at what is thought to be, by some serious people, the hoaxed Islamic terrorist event (Oct. 22, 2014) at the Ottawa Cenotaph and the Parliament Buildings there.  Why?

The Globe and Mail will not follow up on the Saskatchewan Robo-Call scandal of the Conservative Party which paid a fine of $78,000.00 (which most Canadians know 
nothing whatever about.).  Why?

The Globe and Mail will not investigate and report upon the fact (revealed by Bruce Clark) that the Canadian higher courts base indigenous claim judgements on a false reading of the Constitution and, especially, The RoyalProclamation of 1763, creating an on-going and pernicious misuse of the Rule of Law. Why?

Okay, you say, but look how the Globe and Mail supported Jody Wilson-Raybould, former Attorney General of Canada, in her battle against top Liberals, the prime minister, and SNC-Lavalin!!  The answer just might be that the Canadian Deep State wants the corrupt and corrupting Conservatives (Stephen Harper's buddies) back in power.  Supporting Jody Wilson-Raybould was, perhaps, for the Globe and Mail, campaigning for the Party of Corruption to get it back into power as soon as possible.  Scheer madness, perhaps. But.....

The Globe and Mail had a full-page editorial supporting the evil misreading of Venezuela (fomented by U.S. government) urging that the U.S-trained and readied Upstart who declared himself the leader of Venezuela should be recognized and placed into power.  (And, if he is not, it is okay that every punishment that can be dealt to the people of Venezuela should be visited upon them for failing to support the takeover of the country by U.S. Oligarchs wishing to control global fossil fuel deposits.)

Consider that on a different canvas, the Globe and Mail will not touch one of the most engrossing and exciting debates of this generation: the real meaning of the 9/11, 2001, destruction of the Trade Towers in New York City preceding and preparing for the endlessly, murderously destructive, wholly falsely undertaken Rape of the Middle East from 2003, continuing to our own day now, and beyond.  Why won't the Globe and Mail enter that central and on-going discussion and debate?  Because Modern Mainstream Journalism is in the hands of those who operate The Deep State; and their modern journalists follow the credo: half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand.

Doug Saunders writes in FREE THE PRESS that the new, angry populist politics targets Elites and the mainstream media as enemies of the people.  Not intending to do so, Doug Saunders stumbles upon the truth.  For a brief second he sees. We may believe in imagination (only) he walks in the Paris streets with The Yellow Vest.  He sits (in imagination only) in the briefing room with Nicolas Maduro's military officers.  He converses (in imagination only) with the two unfortunate Canadians entrapped by the RCMP, accused, charged, jailed, mistreated and then cast into the street when the Victoria fake Islamic Terrorist Event blew up in the face of its RCMP creators!  He converses (in imagination) with Bruce Clark about the on-going, false precedent-finding of higher court judges on questions of justice for indigenous people.

Doug Saunders and the whole team at the Globe and Mail [the Globe and Mail is representative] imagine themselves working for democracy, justice, and the Rule of Law.  They imagine.  In their imaginations they want to FREE THE PRESS.  In their imaginations.

But they don't act to free the Press.  They prefer that some of them will be shot in the back as foreign correspondents in some far-off places than for all of them to be shot, face-on, through the heart, for certain - all of them - in the Publisher's Office, right at home if they try to do something like honest journalism in a country that does not countenance honest journalism from anybody it can control only countenancing the credo of modern Canadian journalists: half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand.

Contact: Robin Mathews